Two of three registered voters, 67%, say putting Palin on the ticket won't affect their vote; 72% say that of Biden. Of those who say the running mates will make a difference, 18% say Palin makes them more likely to vote for McCain, 11% less likely. That net-positive impact of 7 points is similar to Biden's: 14% said his pick made them more likely to vote for Obama, 7% less likely.

Despite all the "warmness" of some Hillary supporters, I never imagined Palin would bring in or change the mind of any significant number of people who were already going to vote.

What she brings in is people who were probably too disenchanted to vote in the first place. In the eyes of a large section of social conservatives there is no substantive difference between McCain and Obama ( right or wrong, this is what people see ). Sure, McCain is more economically conservative, but so what?

For evangelical conservatives, ( and indeed for most evangelicals ) Palin is exciting enough to get people out to vote. When polls show a statistical dead heat in this race, this alone may be enough to win the election.

Thank you OK! The other part of the poll said she was considered highest inexperienced numbers since Quayle. Which means nothing, because they went on to win.

What does this mean? As I've been trying to say, anyone McCain picked, up to and including a bucket of warm spit, would likely have had the same numbers. People don't vote for VPs. For all of her 'game changing', she had the exact same impact as Biden.

The last VP to make a difference (in the vote) was LBJ. After all the hyperventilating over both picks, neither one will be a game-changer.

Of everything written on the pick that I have seen, David Frum, who has impeccable credentials as a conservative (Bush speechwriter and advisor, married to Danielle Crittenden, National Review) has the smartest take by far.

The more I watch the left, the more I think Palin is a trap pick whose campaign benefits will come more from disgust with lefty reaction to her. The sexist attacks have already been coming--she's a beauty queen, she's too busy raising children to govern, etc.--and I've seen some even more disgusting ones, like a comment insinuating that Palin and McCain were sleeping with each other. If Obama can't keep his supporters in check, moderate women and independents will vote for McCain/Palin out of spite.

This is amazing to you, me, and most commenters on this blog, but the vast majority of "the American People" don't delve deep into the comments of dailykos, LGF, or, *shame* VC. Amazingly enough, they don't even go to the front pages. For all of those 'disgusting comments', how many nasty racist smears are there about Obama that "the American People" wouldn't like in those pages? *shrug*

The people who do already know which way they're going to vote. In their own little bubble chambers. Most people are (apologies to Ilya) rationally ignorant.

According to Rasmussen polling, undecideds apparently don't like the pick. Andrew Sullivan reports the numbers:

On the critical question, "With Palin As Vice-Presidential Nominee, Are You More Or Less Likely To Vote For McCain," there's a striking result. Among those already for McCain, 68 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him; only 6 percent say less; and 23 percent said no impact. Among those already for Obama, Palin made only 9 percent of them more likely to switch to McCain, 59 percent less likely, and 30 percent said it would make no difference.

But among the critical undecideds, the Palin pick made only 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain; and it made 31 percent less likely to vote for him. 49 percent said it would have no impact, and 15 percent remained unsure. More to the point: among undecideds, 59 percent said Palin was unready to be president. Only 6 percent said she was.

In the new survey, 35% of voters say the selection of Palin makes them more likely to vote for McCain while 33% say they are less likely to do so. Most Republicans say they are more likely to vote for Palin and most Democrats say the opposite. As for voters not affiliated with either major party, 37% are more likely to vote for McCain and 28% less likely to do so. Those numbers are a bit more positive than initial reaction to Biden.

What does this mean? As I've been trying to say, anyone McCain picked, up to and including a bucket of warm spit, would likely have had the same numbers. People don't vote for VPs. For all of her 'game changing', she had the exact same impact as Biden.

Good points but one dynamic missed in the discussion is the impact the Palin pick had on the republican base.

I think Nixon said you can't win an election with only the support of your base, but you can't when the election without them.

The republican base had little enthusiasm for mccain. In particular the fiscal conservative portion of the base was disgusted with the big government conservatism of the past eight years and was not that active in supporting mccain.

The choice of Palin energized the base and mccain badly needed this. The republicans in general desperately need a motivated base to help avoid a down ticket wipeout in the election.

Nice try, but they do watch CNN, ABC, NBC, and read the New York Times, LA Times, and their local papers. The relatively mildly sexist comments I mentioned were both from major media outlets, and it's only a matter of time before a much worse comment gets quoted in the media.

Possibly you should go outside of VC and read the papers or watch the news?

From The New Republic's headline story: "But surely a campaign that has been charged with being too naïve to manage rogue state dictators can have a bit of fun with the idea that a one-time Miss Congeniality could effectively face down Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong Il."

Maureen Dowd is always good: "Enthusiastic Republicans don’t see the choice of Palin as affirmative action, despite her thin résumé and gaping absence of foreign policy knowledge, because they expect Republicans to put an underqualified “babe,” as Rush Limbaugh calls her, on the ticket. They have a tradition of nominating fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the West, like the previous Miss Congeniality types Dan Quayle and W., and then letting them learn on the job."

An bizarre attack from TNR: "Sarah Palin named two of her children after witches, once took drugs, and refused to sign a bill forbidding domestic benefits for gay couples."

And this is day 1, while they're still getting used to the decision and wary of being too vicious.

I think William Shakespeare pretty much captured the ultimate effect of all the ongoing instant punditry and spin: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Palin's effect on this election, if any, is going to depend largely on how she performs on the stump over the next 2 months. Particularly whether she avoids the deer in the headlights-style response immortalized by Dan Quayle, and whether she can avoid substantive blunders while talking about major issues.

Although I am sure Joe Biden, with his talent for, um, expropriating memorable quotes for the benefit of the Proletariat, is already standing in front of his mirror practicing this line for the VP debate: "Governor Palin, I knew Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was a fiend of mine. And Governor, you're no Hillary Clinton."

[and no I won't be making another post noting that the word "fiend" as used above was supposed to be spelled "friend"]

So feminist women AREN'T going to vote for the FIRST WOMAN who actually gets on the Presidential ballot? They are going to let the two men (Obama and Biden) who blocked Hillary have the cake and eat it too?

I think a good number of women [u]will not fail[/u] to vote for the first women to make it. If so, they are building their OWN "glass ceiling."

No matter what they say, especially now in August, in November they'll go in the voting booth, close their eyes, hold their nose, and vote for H-E-R.

So feminist women AREN'T going to vote for the FIRST WOMAN who actually gets on the Presidential ballot? They are going to let the two men (Obama and Biden) who blocked Hillary have the cake and eat it too?

Fact Check: SECOND WOMAN. Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 was the first. Not that her presence on the ticket did Mondale a whole lot of good, tho...

Next time at least structure your rant with some basic grounding in reality.

Used To Be Disgusted:
Palin's effect on this election, if any, is going to depend largely on how she performs on the stump over the next 2 months. Particularly whether she avoids the deer in the headlights-style response immortalized by Dan Quayle, and whether she can avoid substantive blunders while talking about major issues.

There are least a dozen video clips of Barack in which, when I just listen, he sounds more out of his depth than Dan Quayle ever did. When I watch the clips, he has his eyes narrowed and his forehead furrowed, and the impression is totally different. The reason he is floundering is because he is ... thinking, or trying to remember, or something. Not trying to figure out the best place to hide.

I think you'll see McCain/Palin's numbers steadily grow relative to Obama/Biden's - both as to popularity and campaign contributions.

McCain's pick of Palin for VP has really energized the base:

$7 million has poured in to the McCain campaign since he picked Palin. See here.

Has money poured into the Obama campaign because of the Biden pick? Not so much.

Conservative/libertarians are greatly gratified by the choice of Palin for VP. And, heck, if she's going to be in the news cycle a lot once she's VP, it can't hurt that she's smart, conservative, and smokin'...

Please stop cross-posting THE SAME links to every thread. We get it. You're a hack. But it's really tiring.

NYU JD-
You mention all these mainstream sourses, and cite the New Republic. Yeah, that's where the "Average American" is getting their news. The "Average American" is only vaguely aware of what is going on in the campaign, and certainly isn't reading TNR (or NRO). Like I've mentioned previously, I'm looking forward to the two months hence "crow eating" thread. Somehow I doubt anyone will eat crow about their stupid prognostications, but just short of 50% of the commenters will want to complain about how stupid the "American People" were.

I don't think we can assess Palin's impact on the race until she's had the chance to give a few major speeches. I suspect the McCain campaign chose her not because she's a woman, but because she has a genuine blue-collar back-ground, and her role will be to go from Michigan, to Ohio, to Pennsylvania and back again until election day.

have you noticed (not that roboposters notice anything) that you're non-responsive to what's going on in the thread. It like you see a word, and use that word to link to 5 different points to use to attack Obama with. Amazingly enough, you're not helping your cause. Once frothiy partisan Democrats/Republicans are removed from their natural hack echo chambers, they look silly, like a camel on an iceberg.

I don't think the poll numbers mean much at this point. Most people don't know much about her and she has yet to be introduced at the GOP convention in the way that Biden already has been at the Dem convention, to participate in a VP debate, etc. The poll would mean more if it came after people had a chance to meet her and decide whether they like and trust her with the VP job.

To say that the numbers at this point suggest the pick was a bad one is to suggest that only politicians who have a pre-existing national profile should have been considered, because they are the only ones who would make an immediate positive impact on polls like this.

Interestingly, that would have ruled out at least three of the folks seriously considered by Obama for VP: Kaine, Sebillius and Bayh, none of whom are known by the average Joe outside their respective states. But I don't recall the same reaction to those Governors when their names were floated. Incidentally, FWIW, Kaine has been a Governor exactly as long as Palin.

The pick of Palin has cost McCain this Floridian's vote, and any chance of my wife's (she was on the fence, waiting for the speaches).

I'm a fiscal and security conservative; social libertarion. I have concerns about Obama, particularly his understanding of Islamofascism and what he'll let Pelosi and her crowd do. But I can't vote for a ticket with a nut like Palin.

This mini-poll of bloggers finds those on the Right fairly positive, and those on the Left a bit mixed. FWIW, I'm one of the folks included in the polls, and I said she'll "help a little," primarily because she fires up the base and reinforces McCain's "maverick" image.

A mini-poll of bloggers of is not exactly representative. I am reminded of the telephone poll that predicted Hoover would win over FDR.

metro1- All polls are relatively meaningless, except for the only one that counts. You seem new here. Maybe if stop and look at other comments for a while and get a better feel for the place you'll understand. It's considered poor form (to say the least) to keep posting the same attack links on each and evey post. Maybe freerepublic or LGF is more your speed?

Personally, I chose my moniker because I thought its nature would be evident to most, although I guess the "Amervage American" of whom we are so found doesn't have a grounding in Norse mythology. As for any biases; I was a McCain supporter in 2000, and was pleased to encounter him (briefly- handshake). I am now in favor of Obama. I hate hypocrisy &extremism on both sides; I tend to correct the stuff coming from the right more here because it attracts more of those loonies. *shrug* I guess if I hung out at Dailykos, I would be defending McCain and free markets (although I still would vote Obama).

But I don't recall the same reaction to those Governors when their names were floated. Incidentally, FWIW, Kaine has been a Governor exactly as long as Palin.

I, for one, said that Kaine would be an awful pick because of the experience issue. My choice for Obama would have been Sebelius. Had Obama gone that way, the buzz this week would have been about him, rather than McCain who would have been seen as copying Obama.

My God, but the Obama campaign has been run horribly since the end of the primaries. And that's coming from someone who is going to vote for the guy.

Just hours after his campaign issued a first statement Friday ripping the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, Barack Obama backed away from that statement — or at least its tone — and said that his own campaign had misrepresented him.

Obama often speaks of how important his staffers are to his bid and would be to his administration, and he’s praised them for covering for each other’s mistakes. But in the heat of the campaign, he’s publicly called them out for everything from missing an event to misrepresenting his policy positions to using his office to aid a donor.

When asked about his campaign’s attack on Palin, attributed to top spokesman Bill Burton, at a Friday afternoon media availability at a Pennsylvania biodiesel plant, Obama referred to a statement he and running mate Joe Biden had since issued that hardly touched on policy issues and called Palin “an admirable person and … a compelling new voice.”

If McCain wins 65% or more of the white women vote, I'll never post on this site again. If he doesn't, you'll never post again

You have a deal. The #'s are on my side and it is a wager that I would actually bet for real money if possible.

If you think any substantial number of white women are going to vote for a black man you know very little about sociology. I also feel the need to point out that Kerry only garnered 51% of the total female vote in 2004.

Interestingly, that would have ruled out at least three of the folks seriously considered by Obama for VP: Kaine, Sebillius and Bayh, none of whom are known by the average Joe outside their respective states. But I don't recall the same reaction to those Governors when their names were floated.

Karl Rove on Face the Nation August 10, 2008:

"With all due respect, again, to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years. He's been able, but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th-largest city in America. And, again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California, Aurora, Colorado, Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona, North Las Vegas, or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town. If he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice, where he's said, 'You know what? I'm really not first and foremost concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"

I realize that Rove isn't addressing the issue jgshapiro was (whether picking an unknown governor is "good" in the political sense). But I couldn't help it.

If you think any substantial number of white women are going to vote for a black man you know very little about sociology.

I'm a white woman for Obama and I'm certainly not the only one. White women have no problem with black men. From a sociological and historical perspective, the white woman/black man idea generated alot of fear and hatred from white men, not white women (i.e., white men lynched black men for looking at white women, etc.). As far as white women are concerned...once you go black you never go back.

So here's the lineup for Sarah:
- she maybe stimulates the right
- she maybe gets a few women who would otherwise have voted for Obama, but not many because the dems/Clinton supporters don't agree with her on almost any issue, whether it is abortion rights, women's rights, oil drilling, global warming, etc.
- the notion that she has meaningful executive experience is a joke - does any one really believe when they stop pontificating or shilling for their political position, that she can sit down with Merkel, Putin, Hu, the Pakistani politicians, the Wall Street powers, etc. and be anything other than the junior varsity? maybe those on the right can convince themselves her executive experience qualifies her for these encounters, but they must be smoking dope.
- she has no experience in foreign policy. she might be good at foreign policy issues once she got some experience, but she is clueless and ignorant beyond belief on these issues right now
- in contrast, Obama has studied these issues and has many sophisticated advisers with whom he has consulted -- you may not like them or their views, but to say that she is on anything like the same playing field with Obama or Biden is self-delusional
- i am surprised that most commenters have assumed that she knows something about domestic policy issues simply because she has had to deal with energy issues in Alaska for 18 months.
- she obviously has a view on energy and it fits with McCain's recent about face to support offshore and (soon) ANWR drilling. but it is pretty obvious that domestic drilling will not further energy independence and will make no meaningful impact on energy prices in the short, or for that matter the long term. she does not recognize this (nor does McCain) and so her policies are essentially fraudulent -- selling the false proposition that domestic drilling will make a difference
- she (and McCain) have nothing interesting to say about alternative energy sources and sustainability, which, if anything will, have the only hope of true energy independence
- and whatever she knows about energy policy and whatever one's views on these issues, what does she know about broader national or international economic and fiscal policy? can she have a conversation about monetary policy? can she have a conversation about the balance of trade? can she have a conversation about the imbalances in the markets that have arisen from the sub-prime crisis? I seriously doubt it.
- she is a rookie. to be sure she is a rookie with whom I disagree on probably 90% of the issues. but as a rookie, it is highly likely that she will make rookie mistakes. these will likely happen in the campaign, where she will, understandably, say something that betrays her naivete and inexperience. and these mistakes will help ensure that she and McCain are not elected. let us hope that by some miracle she does not wind up in a position where she is making rookie decisions as the leader of the free world